I think this is the place to post this, I'm hoping that I can get some helpful responses here.
This may be long, so bear with me ....
First - we've been considering keeping the umbilical chord attached for at least 1-3 hours after the birth of Baby #2. I read the article about it in Mothering last spring and it was fascinating and it sounds like it would be good to do. I don't think I want to keep the placenta attached longer than that .... Is there any medical research anyone can suggest for me to bring to the OB/MW to discuss this with him/her? (I don't know which I'll be seeing at my appointment next week) [My sister says she remembers learning about this in nursing school, that there are "trade-offs both ways," and she says she thinks that the rationale for not doing it has something to do with elevated bili levels and risks of jaundice? She is looking for more information and wants me to share with her anything I find too]
Second - The above sister, who is a nurse on a floor which deals with a lot of autoimmune and oncology patients, told me that we *really* should look into chord blood registries and save chord blood. I have always thought that chord blood banks were pretty much a scam to get parents to pay a ton of $$ for something they'll likely never need, and I know I've read of cases where the bank shut down and just left the blood unrefrigerated etc. etc. .... To me it seems that chord blood donation would be vastly preferable (although not possible in my area, I think the nearest hospital that does it is in Minnesota and I'm in WY!) .... Does anyone know much about the co$ts of chord blood banking, etc.? I'm assuming, if we leave the placenta attached for several hours, this question becomes a moot point anyway as the chord blood would be mostly transferred on into our baby.
Third - Does anyone know anything about using pitocin during or to facilitate placental delivery? The reason for this question is below - it's also something I'll be discussing with the OB.
I've been going through and filing/reorganizing our filing system and ran across the itemized bill for Ina's birth back in 2003 - I require an IV because of a heart condition which necessitates antibiotics during labor/delivery. Listed among the pharmaceuticals I received were 3 10u/ml doses of *pitocin.*
Now, this is bizarre - because I arrived at the hospital at 12:30 am already dilated to 5 1/2 cm. I was 8+ cm less than 1 1/2 hours later (my family labors fast
) - even though I was in back labor. And delivered at 4:30am. Obviously NOT induced, and frankly the nurses were in panic mode trying to get everything ready for baby's arrival once they realized that I really was delivering that quickly as a FTM. So what the
was the pitocin doing there on our bill?
So I talked to my mom, who told me it must be a clerical error (she's a nurse), and that they wouldn't have given me pitocin because with how quickly my labor was progressing they would have risked rupturing my uterus by giving it to me.
Called the doctor's office, she said there was no notation in my file and it sounded odd, but to check the hospital records as they are more detailed. The hospital said that the nurse's notes showed that pitocin was given during the time of *placental delivery* and that it's sometimes used to slow bleeding, or to make the placenta come more quickly.This does NOT jive with dh's and my recollections. We were NOT told they were using pitocin on me. I delivered the placenta almost immediately after Ina was born (the nurses were still doing their tests in the corner when it was delivered). And dh says there wasn't nearly as much blood as he expected (certainly not as much as there was during my m/c last fall). Plus, if I'd delivered the babe so quickly, why would anyone anticipate that the placenta would need pitocin?
I then talked with my sister, also a nurse, who said that the nurse may have written the pitocin on the wrong chart - that it happens all the time. That some other mom may have required pitocin and not been charged for it, since it went on my chart.
Anyway, I'm going to talk to the OB directly about this and see what he says/recalls. One of the reasons I'm so incensed is that this is not the way our OB is, KWIM? He's pro-bf, pro-"extended" bf, he's very collaborative with his patients, great bed-side manner, he was absolutely OK with us wanting a NCB delivery, never even suggested meds prior to labor or during delivery. So if this really happened, I feel betrayed. But maybe, if it happened, it was more "hospital policy" than something he even knew was going on??
I wonder this, because now that I know more about the AAP bf policy, I know that the hospital policy for delivery was, as my sister the nurse says, "VERY old-fashioned!" - they placed Ina on my chest quickly to dry her off, cut the chord, then whisked her over to a table to weigh/Apgar etc. her, then dh was told he could go to the nursery with her for her first bath etc. -- I think it was at least 1 hour if not 1 1/2 hours after birth, before I was able to hold her in my arms and attempt nursing
... At the time, I didn't know that this wasn't "just the way things are done." I know better now, and have the AAP statement to bring to the OB appointment where we discuss labor plans, so the OB (or MW, whichever delivers) know what I want - and also plan to very politely let the hospital know that I'm sure they're following the AAP policy now, and expect that it will be followed with our baby's delivery.
My sister, whose first was delivered 10 years ago, said that she *never* was separated from her babies until they'd latched on and nursed, even with the baby who required a Ped to check her out when she was delivered. She had always assumed something had been "wrong" with Ina to require her to be separated from me so long, and aghast to hear that, no, there were NO concerns at ALL about her health when she delivered.
Thanks in advance for any/all suggestions, especially any articles you can refer me to!